posted at 3:22 pm on November 1, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Charlie Cook is usually known for his calm, somewhat conservative (in the non-political sense) predictions for elections. He waited quite a while before joining the chorus that said Republicans would retake control of the House in this midterm cycle, and has remained diffident to the GOP’s chances in the Senate until recently. Today, Cook gives his final predictions for the midterms, which hit the disaster level for Democrats:

In its final forecast for the election cycle, The Cook Political Report expects a gain for Republicans of 50 to 60 seats in the House, with six to eight seats in the Senate. Below are the final outlooks and latest ratings changes.

His reasoning for the House is rather self-evident. Democrats have trailed all year in polling, not just in the generic polls but also in specific races. More than a quarter of the Democrats in Congress have trailed their GOP challengers at some point over the last few weeks, which means about 64 of them are in deep trouble. Half of them have failed to hit the 50% mark in surveys. Somehow, though, Cook believes that Democrats have 181 safe seats even with those numbers in play, while Republican incumbents can count on 204 certain holds.

Cook’s prediction on the Senate seems a little overly cautious:

The Cook Political Report is adjusting its current outlook to reflect a net gain for Republicans of 6 to 8 seats, down from 7 to 9 seats. While it is becoming increasingly likely that Republicans will hold all 18 of its own seats, Democrats’ prospects in three of their 19 seats have improved in recent days. Sens. Barbara Boxer in California and Patty Murray in Washington now appear to be headed for re-election, albeit by small margins. In the special election in West Virginia, Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin now holds an advantage. Currently there are 57 Democrats, two independents that caucus with Democrats, and 41 Republican Senators. Post-election, Republicans could hold between 47 and 49 seats to 51 to 53 seats for Democrats. This new outlook means that the odds of Republicans winning a majority in the Senate are now non-existent.

I wouldn’t be too quick to discount a couple of these races. Manchin has taken a late lead in polling, but he has seriously underperformed the entire cycle for a reason. Palin just spent some time supporting John Raese in the last couple of days, and that could have a big impact. Murray also doesn’t look like a lock for re-election in Washington — in fact, the trends there look like Rossi has picked up enough momentum to beat her. Boxer has an edge in California but has lost five points in a week. Linda McMahon trails in CT, but Rasmussen’s latest poll shows her halving Blumenthal’s lead in a week (more on that later). If a national wave pushes these three to the GOP, Republicans will come pretty close to control of the Senate, or at least force Joe Biden to cast tiebreaking votes.

As Nate Silver suggested last night, there is good reason to think that the Republican wave this year has been underestimated:

Throughout this election season, I’ve tried to stress that there is a great deal of uncertainty in the outcome. Not necessarily uncertainty in individualraces: people probably overestimate that. But uncertainty, rather, in where the House and the Senate will finish over all. People probably underestimate how strongly polling and forecasting errors are correlated from district to district. If Republicans tend to overperform expectations in some races, they will probably also overperform in many, most, or maybe even almost all races. The same holds true for Democrats. (The most recent time something like this occurred was 1998, when polls underestimated the standing of Democrats by 4-5 points nationwide and in almost all individual races.)

If a situation like the one I described above transpires, it’s going to catch a lot of people by surprise. It really shouldn’t; it’s well within the realm of possibility.

He gives five potential reasons for missing the amplitude, and pay close attention to #5:

In addition to wrongly excluding some Republican “unlikely voters” (see Point No. 2), it’s also conceivable that some likely voter models based on past voting histories are overrating the propensity of Democrats to vote. The reason could be that some of them are based on past voting history, and a common question is whether the voter had participated in the last two elections.

But the last two elections — 2006 and 2008 — were good ones for Democrats, one in which there was little if any “enthusiasm gap,” or it may even have favored Democrats. This is, in fact, quite atypical: Republicans usually do have a turnout advantage, especially in midterm elections. Their demographics are older and whiter, and whites aged 50 and up are the most reliable voters. If likely voter models are benchmarked to 2006 and 2008 patterns, therefore, they could underestimate the turnout gap, giving too much credit to Democrats who voted in 2006 or 2008 but who don’t ordinarily. Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics makes a nice version of this argument.

The results Cook predicts would represent a stunning victory on any terms. It would put Republicans in control of the agenda at least in the House and act as a brake on Obamanomics and wild spending, assuming that the GOP has learned its lesson from 2006 and 2008.

My predictions: I’m guessing that the GOP picks up 65 seats in the House, and nine Senate seats.

Update: AJ Strata has more optimism than I do, or at least more than I will allow myself to indulge …. (h/t: Adam Baldwin)

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

I’m inclined to believe that unnamed Democrat consultant in Politico yesterday who said Democrats are going to lose all the close ones, even the ones where they looked like they had small leads over the weekend. That means Fiorina and Rossi win, and maybe even McMahon.

There doesn’t seem to be any fundamental reason why this election should be different than other wave years in which the Senate followed the House. It’s not like Barbara Boxer or Patty Murray are the fabulous popular figures who are unbeatable and have dumbasses running against them. They’re both stupid clowns and they have very strong and credible opponents.

You forgot to mention Jim Geraghty or Jay Cost, though Cost hasn’t released his final predictions, he has said he’s giving into his inner Hulk with the final Gallup numbers. Geraghty has Ben Quayle losing which I have to admit amuses me.

Anyway, I’ve thought all year 9 would be perfect. That keeps the Dems in charge of the Senate and accountable on both ends of Pennsylvania Ave. I think Rossi will finally win outside the margin to steal it from him, but Carly loses, which hurts, and Manchin wins. Also, I’ve thought for a while 75 is very doable, and I still think so.

Conventional wisdom is too optimistic. It’s gonna be a dud, a fizzle, we barely get the house, the senate goes into paralysis, obama gets his tyrant on and the GOP establishment still vainly searches for a clue.

Lizzie, I have NO clue what is going on right now. I have been gutting my new house since thursday… so I am ultra tired and I haven’t really been paying attention this weekend and scratch my head at WTF I see on HA.

If I say I can’t wait for it to be over… would you hold it aganist me?

If it’s 50-50 in the Senate, any chance of getting Joe Lieberman to come over to our side? Tell him we have punch and pie.

rbj on November 1, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Someone at NRO (I think) mentioned something about Webb from VA. Nebraska’s Nelson is up in 2012. Maybe he might want to take back that Obamacare vote. The punch and pie might appeal to him too.

One thing is for sure. As long as the coastal states continue to double up on liberal senators, the states in flyover zone need to redouble efforts to make Democratic senators extinct or endangered species. We need more control over the appointment of federal judges.

HEY! I got a competition for HA commenters! How many HA blog posts has AllahPundit submitted since the polls started stated that the Democrats are gonna get massacred on Tuesday?

Hey Ed, is AllahPundit on vacation? I bet his called in sick all weekend long and plans to do so for the rest of the week. He’s come down with a case of Eeyore-reversism that he is literally killing him. What with no polls showing a Democrat recovery in sight, what is he to post for the next few months? He must be turn from purple to red, and is in shock with the Conservative color styling. Just tell him red is a nice color on him.

If it’s 50-50 in the Senate, any chance of getting Joe Lieberman to come over to our side? Tell him we have punch and pie.
rbj on November 1, 2010 at 3:31 PM

If the vote is related to defense, Lieberman will cross over. If it isn’t, then he stays with the Dems.

joejm65 on November 1, 2010 at 3:42 PM

I believe with “our side” rbj was referring to caucusing. It seems unlikely. Whether that would be acceptible, in my view, depends on what we offered him. If it was committee assignments solely related to defense and foreign policy, that would probably be a plus for the right.

However, putting him on domestic committees would really hurt us, since he’d cross over quite often. It wouldn’t hurt us right away, since without him, we’d be in the minority and would lose those votes anyway, but in 2012, when we are basically guaranteed to have the senate anyway (10 repubs vs 23 democrats would give us a net gain even in a very bad year), Lieberman crossing would cost us committee votes we would have won were he still a Dem.

Wow, I can’t see how anyone is coming up with 9 Senate seats.
I think there will be some surprises in the House though.
I’m going with 70 and 7.
It’s going to be a fun night!Side bet…. which race is first to file lawsuit?

All I have to say is:
1. 70/9
2. Once they get in there I WILL BE HOLDING THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE!
3. I will be glad when 11/3 comes. I am just about worn out from all of this.
4. I want a really good birthday present this year (11/11) of repeal of Obowmaocare, Issa to do his thing, extend the Bush tax credits, etc.
5. Ummmmmmm…that’s all for now. ;-)

I think Republicans are going to do better than anyone predicts. I live in NC and I’ve talked to a lot of people who don’t normally vote in midterm elections and they are angry and fed up with Obama. They are voting in this election and voting conservative! My husband had to stand in line 2.5 hours on Saturday for early voting and he said there wasn’t a Hispanic or African American in the line. (I only mention this becuase they tend to vote democratic) I can’t wait to see what happens on 11/3/10

It takes 2-3 days to prepare to a 4 hour time change? I thought he hang out at the Val-U-Rite store? It’s not like he has to change his Sarah Palin T-Shirt and pj bottoms or even get out of bed. He should be able to type on his laptop with a bag of popcorn and the vodka on the nightstand.

It takes 2-3 days to prepare to a 4 hour time change? I thought he hang out at the Val-U-Rite store? It’s not like he has to change his Sarah Palin T-Shirt and pj bottoms or even get out of bed. He should be able to type on his laptop with a bag of popcorn and the vodka on the nightstand.